Should He Stay or Should He Go?
That's the question the Obama transition team seems to be mulling at the moment regarding Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Over at TPM, David Kurtz seems decidedly lukewarm about the prospect:
That said, I can see the potential value of keeping Gates on for another year or so. After all, this isn't your typical transition. Obama was elected with a mandate to wind down a war that was started by his Republican predecessor. There's an emerging consensus at the moment--across party lines--that it's time to start pulling troops out of Iraq. But there are still many holdouts on the Republican side, people who will inevitably accuse Obama of pursuing a "policy of surrender" and attempt to lay the blame for any negative post-withdrawal events at his feet. Having Gates, a Republican and a Bush appointee, orchestrate the withdrawal would help to de-politicize the policy and would force the GOP to take some ownership of it. Gates' presence at the Defense Department would provide significant political cover for Obama's war policies, especially among the media. And anything that serves to de-politicize the war debate is good for the country at the moment.
This scenario can only work, however, if Gates and Obama see eye to eye on policy. Obviously if Gates is unwilling to implement and publicly defend Obama's policies, keeping him in charge of the Defense Department makes little sense.
I can't imagine a Republican President keeping any of the big four cabinet secretaries (State, Justice, Defense, Treasury) from a previous Democratic administration. Yet it seems as if the Democrats are expected to play nice. There is a decidedly unequal expectation that, after they decried the ravenous partisanship of the Bush era, the Democrats must not engage in any partisanship, which is a silly and even dangerous false equivalency.I agree with this sentiment, though I think it's somewhat beside the point. Obama should not keep Gates in order to "play nice." Indeed, I bristle at the very idea of having a Republican as Secretary of State or Defense because I think it furthers the badly mistaken notion that Republicans are somehow stronger on foreign policy issues than Democrats.
That said, I can see the potential value of keeping Gates on for another year or so. After all, this isn't your typical transition. Obama was elected with a mandate to wind down a war that was started by his Republican predecessor. There's an emerging consensus at the moment--across party lines--that it's time to start pulling troops out of Iraq. But there are still many holdouts on the Republican side, people who will inevitably accuse Obama of pursuing a "policy of surrender" and attempt to lay the blame for any negative post-withdrawal events at his feet. Having Gates, a Republican and a Bush appointee, orchestrate the withdrawal would help to de-politicize the policy and would force the GOP to take some ownership of it. Gates' presence at the Defense Department would provide significant political cover for Obama's war policies, especially among the media. And anything that serves to de-politicize the war debate is good for the country at the moment.
This scenario can only work, however, if Gates and Obama see eye to eye on policy. Obviously if Gates is unwilling to implement and publicly defend Obama's policies, keeping him in charge of the Defense Department makes little sense.
posted by A.L. at 2:20 PM
8 Comments:
Isn't the big issue with Gates that the brass respects him? My sense is that the uniformed military can make withdrawal into a political disaster by complaining that Obama is ignoring their advice in his haste to leave Iraq, or whatever.
Leaving Gates at Defense partially defuses that, I think.
I haven't found any evidence (in a quick search) that Robert Gates is a Republican. If indeed he is not a registered Republican, and he hasn't been much involved in politics, then there is a little more political cover for Obama to work with. The bottom line would still be whether he agrees to implement and defend Obama's policies.
I haven't found any evidence (in a quick search) that Robert Gates is a Republican. If indeed he is not a registered Republican, and he hasn't been much involved in politics, then there is a little more political cover for Obama to work with.
Whether or not he's registered, he was appointed by President Bush and is seen by the media as a Republican (he also served in the Bush I administration as CIA director). That's enough to provide some over.
Also, John makes a good point in noting that Gates is respected by the military brass, which might make withdrawal go smoother.
I would support keeping Gates as a token Republican. There is even a historical parallel - FDR appointed Stimson as Secretary of War.
Gates is not a neoconservative, and I think Defense is one area where there may be something already approaching a bipartisan consensus. Gates can provide Obama cover, while also beginning what I think will be a big battle - slimming down the military, getting rid of some of their more spendthrift weapons systems, and getting them set for the 21st century.
Gates has made a start by appointing a former cargo pilot as head of the Air Force. Basically, he is saying that a major role for the Air Force in the future will be logistics. Imagine how that has gone down with the spoiled fighter jocks! On the other hand, does Al Qaeda have an air force?
Even if Gates stayed a year, it would be enough. Remember how Clinton got shafted in his first few months over gays in the military? The Pentagon has its squad of pals in the media and it can use them to hurt Obama.
But Republicans at State and the Treasury - forget it! Obama would just piss off his own party needlessly. As it is, there are not enough major jobs to go round and some supporters are going to feel spurned.
Forget it. Get somebody new. Make a clean break. We can do better.
I can see the value in keeping Gates on if the point is to placate the brass. But the stab in the back narrative is going to come no matter what Obama does. Keeping Gates on won't assuage its proponents; they'll just label him a traitorous RINO and not miss a beat. It's just how they operate.
AL,
You're right about the political benefits about keeping Gates, but you didn't mention any practical benefits. Let's give credit where it's due: Gates has done a good job and he is a smart, honest man. He also has a good working relationship with the Pentagon establishment. I particularly like his ability to be bold with reform while not being abrasive.
In addition to the political benefits that you cited, he could help to bring about a more realistic military budget, which is necessary but will be politically painful. The Republicans will immediately start in about Obama being weak on defense and selling the country out etc. Gates could give him some cover. I would love to see him in the Obama cabinet for a year or two.
Personally, I would want Obama to clean house, especially on defense. Iraq was a bad idea from day one (though we will certainly differ on why it was--my reasons were known before the war, unlike liberals who jumped on the post-war no WMD bandwagon). Obama has inherited it, and has promised to make it all better. I say let him do so, and if he can't he is most certainly to blame.
Nom Deplume
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home